Many dictators usually do. You have to offset the bad with more good. Actually voter fraud has existed since Ancient Greece. It's nothing new, and
nothing spectacular. You can't get away with it, and the ability to do so decreases as your population increases.

A very weak justification indeed. I wonder how backwards USA is bending.From Beacon of Liberty to Beacon of tyranny ,genocide,vote fraud and
corporatism

Iraq had a functional economy (and productive, as you say) before the invasion of Kuwait. That was all on them, but some people (news commentators)
have argued that if it were not for the sanctions imposed in Iraq, Saddam wouldn't feel the need to sting Kuwait.

This makes sense, but you still cannot assume it is the same for Iran, because unless Iran feels like taking over Dubai, there are no small
independent nations they can invade. And Iran, historically, does not invade just because they lack resources.

They made the mistake of stepping into Kuwait, got a measured U.S. response, and backed down. After that it was the real hit from the sanctions. I
remember hearing stories about Iraq requesting international assistance in their healthcare system, because they needed things like x-ray machines,
and those were banned under the sanctions and restrictions enforced by the U.N. .

I don't expect the UN to make sense when they make their laws. After all, banning nukes in space means no nuclear fission propelled space ships. I am
far more trusting of sanctions when they are lead by an actual power or powers like the US, England, hell I'd even trust sanctions on Syria lead by
Turkey over the UN. Because Turkey is a regional power and knows more.

I'm sure you give the GDP data with the best intentions, but to me it's a hard concept to wrap my head into (that Iraq is better now than what it
was before). It's a very touchy debate if you think of it.

It boils down to the fact that Iraq produces Twice more now than it did ever in its past. Of course its a touchy subject. It's blood money. But they
are better off today than before. I'll give you the example that most, if not all, former US colonies and interventions are, today, very successful
nations. That does not excuse going into the port of Japan and firing cannon balls at the emperor demanding he open trade routes.

It boils down to the fact that Iraq produces Twice more now than it did ever in its past. Of course its a touchy subject. It's blood money. But they
are better off today than before. I'll give you the example that most, if not all, former US colonies and interventions are, today, very successful
nations. That does not excuse going into the port of Japan and firing cannon balls at the emperor demanding he open trade routes.

Have you read 'the Confessions of an economic hitman' by John Perkins?

war is murder and killing ,especially when there is no national danger to you. Thats the truth and sole truth. Stop shifting goalposts. and iraq is no
ways better off as the iraqi people are not recipients of the wealth.Corporations and politicans are.

Nazis/axis was fighting wars on three continents overtly. Europe,Africa , Asia and Australia. USA is overtly and covertly engaged on every
continent.

And in both cases they were winning until their leaders went insane. If you keep sane leaders, you keep power. Rome, after all, managed to rule across
those same continents for 300+ years before their leaders started going insane.

Do not assume that having power means you cannot keep it when Earth is full of people who did. Look at China, for example. Arguably the only nation on
Earth to have been built by the same policies of Rome and America, and not collapsed. Because their leaders were, for the most part, sane.

German people still had their hides spared from total genocide.I fear it will not be the same for US empire as a lot of people have been on the
recieving end of US empire.And there is great probability of a nuclear one in 2012-2015.

Nuclear war is irrelevant. It's become obsolete. SDI systems developed by Korea, Japan, US, Russia, and EU (and soon China), have more or less made
nuclear weapons an impractical military solution.

Furthermore, if you have any sort of plan on how to invade a continent where, to quote the Japanese, "there is a rifle in every corn field", by all
means inform us all. Because like it or not, some nations simply cannot be conquered b product of their environment, culture, or other reasons. The US
is one such nation. It cannot be conquered. It is impossible. Russia is another example. It is impossible to conquer Russia. There are a few other
examples I could think up. Point is that there exist some nations who are immortal. They can only die by catastrophic environmental destruction, not
by any action of man.

Same can be said for Israel.

No not really at all.

A very weak justification indeed. I wonder how backwards USA is bending.From Beacon of Liberty to Beacon of tyranny ,genocide,vote fraud and
corporatism

And has been since 1776. You do realize the US colonies were FOUNDED by corporations?

False. According to Iraq's central bank the average income is $5000 and rising. 7 million people are bellow the poverty line. GDP per captia has risen
by a third and all stats say the nations is growing well, with 105% growth in school entry. All this data is consistent in showing Iraq is becoming a
pretty decent place.

Nuclear war is irrelevant. It's become obsolete. SDI systems developed by Korea, Japan, US, Russia, and EU (and soon China), have more or less made
nuclear weapons an impractical military solution. Furthermore, if you have any sort of plan on how to invade a continent where, to quote the
Japanese, "there is a rifle in every corn field", by all means inform us all. Because like it or not, some nations simply cannot be conquered b
product of their environment, culture, or other reasons. The US is one such nation. It cannot be conquered. It is impossible. Russia is another
example. It is impossible to conquer Russia. There are a few other examples I could think up. Point is that there exist some nations who are immortal.
They can only die by catastrophic environmental destruction, not by any action of man.

Russia was conquered by Rothschild power in 1917 via the bolshevik revolution,till Stalin started working in a manner contrary to Rothschild
directive.USA has been under the thumb of the Federal Reserve since 1913(another NWO creation) . So,much for your cannot be conquered arguements. And
SDI is not a mature system unless you are refering to scalar weapons.Plus you have biological weapons that can be tailored to certain populations.
Once biological weapons ,rifles in corn fields are useless.And mundane astrology is indicating the disintegration of USA via overt or covert war.

n a Friday interview, Mark Glenn, from The Crescent and Cross Solidarity movement, lashed out at Israel for its nuclear stockpile, sayingTel Aviv is
the only regime that “has threatened to take the entire world down in a nuclear Armageddon in the instance that her precious experiments in Jewish
self-rule in the Middle East ceases to materialize.” “There is no other country in existence today that has basically told the entire world that
if we are going to go down we are going to take the rest of the world down with us,” he added. presstv.com...

And do you know about the jewish gangs and their genocide on Palestinians?

]

And has been since 1776. You do realize the US colonies were FOUNDED by corporations?

This makes sense, but you still cannot assume it is the same for Iran, because unless Iran feels like taking over Dubai, there are no small
independent nations they can invade. And Iran, historically, does not invade just because they lack resources.

Not at all. I actually believe that the Iran leadership is a bit more careful. Saddam was way too trigger happy, and tested the american tolerance
with war rhetoric. He made the miscalculation of forcing a huge bluff at a time his country could not even defend itself, let alone strike back at the
U.S. . And personally, as barbaric as they are, I don't see the current bomb attacks as a strong retaliation against U.S. forces. Wrong and a hit to
the moral, but not strategically strong.

I think they have been paying attention for last decades, while everything was unfolding around them. They know what type of bluff they can pull and
what type they can't.

I don't expect the UN to make sense when they make their laws. After all, banning nukes in space means no nuclear fission propelled space
ships. I am far more trusting of sanctions when they are lead by an actual power or powers like the US, England, hell I'd even trust sanctions on
Syria lead by Turkey over the UN. Because Turkey is a regional power and knows more.

I'm fairly divided on that.

I do agree with you that the U.N. has a lot to learn (if it will ever learn...) how to make proper resolutions and International laws. To be fair,
they do have some good ones, but they are all non-specific to any country, like the anti-piracy laws.

But I still think that those types of decisions are best suited to the model of the U.N. . If we were to start discussing an utopian institution to
deal with these things, we would end up with the current U.N. model, give or take. All countries have a voice (I'm going to steer away from the
membership debate), and a core of powerful countries would have a higher authority on what goes around, with balanced power between them.

The problem is that the Security Council doesn't act on right/wrong, nor even in the best interest of the "target" country. They simply act on their
own interests and strategy. Russia went as far as to state several times that they don't care about Assad, and that Syria isn't "all that important to
them", they just don't like the U.S. presence or influence.

But I do agree with you on the part that important measures, sanctions and even aid should be led and managed by countries who actually know how to
have a proper economy, proper military force and proper diplomatic relationships.

I know many people will see this as foolish due to the state of things, but to go into those details would derail the discussion completely.

It boils down to the fact that Iraq produces Twice more now than it did ever in its past. Of course its a touchy subject. It's blood money. But
they are better off today than before. I'll give you the example that most, if not all, former US colonies and interventions are, today, very
successful nations. That does not excuse going into the port of Japan and firing cannon balls at the emperor demanding he open trade
routes.

Again, I do see your point. But we have to give in to the fact that a lot of that production has a big western slice on it. Sometimes (not always)
it's better to have a local, self-contained economy(like what they had), than to think that big and putting yourself in the current situation they
have.

However, even with all of it's mistakes, I rather have a world controlled by the U.S., than by any other nation.

Some elements are more careful. Some elements are batsh*t insane. Iran is not exactly a unified government, so you cannot assume the patients of a
theocrat is the patience of their president. That's sort of where it begins to look a lot like Stalinist Russia or Hitler's Germany. You start getting
personality cults all over the place.

The problem is that the Security Council doesn't act on right/wrong, nor even in the best interest of the "target" country. They simply act on their
own interests and strategy. Russia went as far as to state several times that they don't care about Assad, and that Syria isn't "all that important to
them", they just don't like the U.S. presence or influence.

Yea that's definably an issue. However you can't deny it makes lies and special interests all the more readily visible. If reddit existed in 2003,
I've no doubt the Iraq war would have never happened.

Again, I do see your point. But we have to give in to the fact that a lot of that production has a big western slice on it. Sometimes (not always)
it's better to have a local, self-contained economy(like what they had), than to think that big and putting yourself in the current situation they
have.

Funny thing is that China just recently overtook the west in Iraq oil deals, if I remember correctly. I think that's quite a testimony to the fact
that Iraq, ultimately, was the result of non-united policy. Some wanted war, some wanted peace, some wanted profit, others wanted tanks. No one got
anything because none had unity. Iraq is a great example of the core problem of US policy, that is consistency. It has none.

owever, even with all of it's mistakes, I rather have a world controlled by the U.S., than by any other nation.

Well, for now. That sort of assumes the world needs a leader. I'm sort of for economic and scientific leadership. Leading the world in weapons just
makes everyone want you for their guard dog.

That's sort of where it begins to look a lot like Stalinist Russia or Hitler's Germany. You start getting personality cults all over the
place.

...Or like Putin in Russia. It's hard to tell where the line is, between him being a president who cares about doing a lot of stuff, or just doing
things for the sake of personality worshipping. (The whole "badass" attitude)

The ironic side of it is that it could play in the favor of the West. If they are divided in their internal power, they don't have the strength to
attack outside of their borders. The inner battle for power would take them to the ground by itself.

Funny thing is that China just recently overtook the west in Iraq oil deals, if I remember correctly. I think that's quite a testimony to the
fact that Iraq, ultimately, was the result of non-united policy. Some wanted war, some wanted peace, some wanted profit, others wanted tanks. No one
got anything because none had unity. Iraq is a great example of the core problem of US policy, that is consistency. It has none.

Yes, but how many of those deals are made with Iraqi companies that have been purchased, or are at least controlled, by western countries? I know that
happened in Libya, and I think the French/Italian got the bigger part of it.

China might be the one purchasing from them now, but who gets the money (from my understanding of the issue), or part of it, is still the west, and
not Iraq-Iraq.

Well, for now. That sort of assumes the world needs a leader. I'm sort of for economic and scientific leadership. Leading the world in weapons
just makes everyone want you for their guard dog.

In my utopian view of the world, I would like to see a world council. No more border crap, no more nationalistic pride or anything of the sorts.
People can still have a regional identity, or a place to call home, and even a culture and sub-culture. However, that only is possible if that
"world" bets on education, with real history, with real teachings about peace and unification. We should preach tolerance and unity above anything
else, since our divisions are actually our biggest problems, the rest are just consequences of that.

But yes, I meant a world leader in a intellectual manner, not in a military-state of things.

Both China and Russia have zero issues supporting Iran/Syria if it helps them financially... Its not doing what's necessarily right, but doing
what's in the best interest of their own country.....

When we look back at this 100 years from, China is going to be saying, "what the hell were we thinking?"

I really dont understand how China and Russia can legitimately defend the actions that have taken place in Iran and Syria... Either they dont want to
believe what's taking place in those countries or they dont care... I believe they dont care...

You really ought to get out more - and to take your head out the sand.

I don't doubt the Syrian army and security services have done some pretty horrible things - but if you believe the heinous propaganda being shovelled
at you by mainstream media concerning syria and its "bloodthirsty regime", you are seriously mistaken.

The reasons China and Russia have opposed western draft resolutions in the Security Council are complex and mainly on two levels.

The first is the international rule of law. Legally, there is nothing that allows a country or group of countries (like NATO or the Arab League) to
interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign state, even for human rights. That is the law. The Chinese and the Russians are merely trying, in
this regard, to uphold the international rule of law, as codified in the UN Charter. Why would they do that, one might ask? Quite simply, to avoid
creating yet another, Lybia-style precedent that might, in the future, give the US and its allies the justification to topple any regime they don't
like (Russia and China being among them). It is out of self interest - but also in the interest of the rest of the world, as no one would benefit from
this kind of anarchy.

The second main reason is geopolitical: the Chinese and the Russians are allies of Syria and, more importantly, Iran. They don't want Iran's main
regional ally - Syria - with which Iran has a defense pact, to be toppled by NATO to facilitate a war against Iran. Again, one might ask why do they
seek to protect Iran? Well, partly for the reason cited above - to avoid world mayhem - but also because it is a vital trading partner, especially for
China, which imports 20% of its oil form Iran.

Iran and Syria are the way they are, and its really none of the West's business to dictate how they should be. Yet, this is precisely what is
happening. NATO and arab countries are trying to undermine and topple these regimes by fomenting and instrumentalizing popular revolts. Why do you
think they do this?

Out of concern for human rights? Freedom, perhaps?

If you believe this, I suggest you start looking at what's going on in the US - the police brutality, incessant governmental spying, assassination of
american citizens by executive order of the president, etc...before trying to "better others" and "liberate" them.

This comment is for all those people that think the U.S. is committing acts of war. This comment is for all those people that think that the U.S.
has no business stopping Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. This comment is also for all those people that argue that the sanctions being imposed on
Iran by the U.S. and it's allies are wrong:

1. Iran has made trade agreements with the international community.

-within these agreements Iran has agreed that they will not manufacture nuclear weapons nor attempt to obtain nuclear weapons by any means.

-Iran has agreed that it will let inspectors in to make sure it is not attempting to produce nuclear weapons

-Iran has agreed that if it does not comply with the rules of the agreement that sanctions will be place on her as per her international trade
agreements.

(these aren't some little domestic wireless phone contract agreements people these agreements are very very extremely serious)

2. Iran is not complying with her agreements by not allowing inspectors in to look into her facilities.

- U.S. and other UN nations impose sanctions on Iran as per part of the agreement.

The United States and the other countries that are participating in this ordeal are merely fulfilling their part of the bargain. Iran knew what would
happen if it didn't comply with the contracts it made with other countries. This is no big surprise for the Iranian government.

Sanctions are NOT acts of war. Iran has imposed sanctions against the United States in the past... was it war? No.

All Iran has to do is to comply to what it has already agreed to and everything will be back to normal.

You know Iran also has another choice. Iran can just back out of it's agreements that it has made with the international community. That would be
most amusing.

I would like to say i agree with what you and Gormin have put forth here.

Technically, under the terms of these trade agreements and such, the US and UN are within their right to place sanctions on Iran.

Please note however, that when over half the planets nations place sanctions on a nation as isolated (Politcally/Economically) as Iran these sanctions
could threaten the very survival of the nation. Threatining the survival of any nation through what ever means could be construde as inciting war.

Please additionally note that i am aware of the purpose of sanctions and that the whole point of utilizing these actions to force non-compliant
nations to abide be the international rulings.

Please do not mis understand, Iran has made its beds and now it must sleep in it and to continue on defiantly refusing the demands of the global
community is just asking for further sanctions. I just like playing devils advocate sometimes.

Yup, so have many other countries. Want to know which ones aren't a part of the NPT?
India. Israel. Pakistan. North Korea. North Korea was a signatory to the NPT, but dropped out. I say Iran drops out too.

-within these agreements Iran has agreed that they will not manufacture nuclear weapons nor attempt to obtain nuclear weapons by any means.

Right, and there is no proof still.

-Iran has agreed that it will let inspectors in to make sure it is not attempting to produce nuclear weapons

-Iran has agreed that if it does not comply with the rules of the agreement that sanctions will be place on her as per her international trade
agreements.

Can you please source this? I am in too much of a hurry to look right now. Thanks.

(these aren't some little domestic wireless phone contract agreements people these agreements are very very extremely serious)

I don't think anyone with half a mind would have compared the two.

I too, think that Iran should back out of the NPT, I mean, it is also about getting rid of your nuclear arsenal, not just agreeing to not build, but
some people forget about that. Plus, you know, there is no proof.

Would only be relevant if they weren't a homophobic, xenophobic, halfway between national socialist and theocratic borderline failed state.

And if you want to talk about history, there isn't really any. It's a new government. Literally one of the youngest on Earth. It has no track
record. I see no reason why to assume peace when dealing with theocratic states that like to execute people who don't fit it's definition of good.

I'm glad we have a true blooded Iranian on the board to set us all straight! Please tell me how it is for the average Iranian.
So you don't like dealing with theocracies? Israel ring a bell? Vatican City? The state of Utah? Pakistan might even be considered one.

I see no reason why to assume peace when dealing with theocratic states that like to execute people who don't fit it's definition of good.

Sorry, I had to see that again to make sure my eyes were working.
You do realize, I hope, that western countries also execute people who don't fit it's definition of good, they just do it in that persons' home
country.

Without going off topic to much here....Do you have proof that Iran is not developing a nuclear program with the intent of weaponization? (Devils
adovate again :lol

In western culture we like to live by the philosophy Innocent until proven guilty...perhaps on the international stage your are guilty until proven
innocent??

Who knows, either way if evidence comes forth proving either side of the argument we will probably not be privy to that information.

I don't need to prove they are not developing a nuclear program with weaponization on their mind. They need to prove to me, that Iran is doing that.
I fell for the aluminum tube debacle and cheered when the bombs fell on the "evildoers", I won't get caught again.

I think you are exactly right about your take on the international stage. Although, I do readily admit, Iran seems to be doing everything in their
power to make it appear that they are doing something nefarious, I just need proof.

The Vatican is the only one you mentioned that is actually a theocracy.

Furthermore you're trying to murk up something that's pretty obvious. Shooting a man for slaughtering a dozen people in a theatre is not the same as
shooting someone because he likes to pop in through the back door.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.